Do you really need a domain controller?

No every business needs or wants centralized control.


Let's start out with the good points: there are advantages to a Microsoft Domain Controller model. Centralized user control, fine grained resource access control: these are often useful and very helpful.

But not every business needs this, and there are disadvantages also. Centralized logon also means no logon if that server acts up. Resource access permissions can be much more than is needed for a small business, and can be confusing to maintain.

Unfortunately, businesses often get pushed into this model when they buy new software. The people installing the software are often fairly clueless about networking in general but what they do know is that setting up a Domain Controller makes their work easier. Note that's "their" work, not necessarily yours.

For example, you may have a mixed environment, and in spite of the shiny new Windows software, you still need some Unix apps. By the way, don't be too quick to pat yourself on the shoulder for replacing that clunking old Unix software. My bet is that in five to ten years you'll be moving back to a Unix or Linux based app: unless Microsoft finds some legal shenanigan to kill Linux, I think that's almost inevitable.

But never mind, here's the barely computer-literate Windows "consultants" come to install your new system. They'll be recommending a Domain Controller model. Push back: ask why their software can't run on a server in a peer to peer network. Almost always the answer is that it can. And doing that just might make your migration less painful. For example, a lot of small businesses have XP Home computers. Microsoft doesn't like those to join a Domain. There are ways around it (just do a Google search for "XP Home join domain") but it's still extra work and hassle.

While I'm thinking about it, do NOT let them confuse you or themselves about the "Domain". This has nothing to do with Internet DNS or your mail domain (and for crying out loud: don't let them talk you into Microsoft Exchange or IIS!). Microsoft (as usual) didn't have a clue about the Internet when they designed this stuff, so they took a meaningful name (domain) and polluted it with their nonsense. A Microsoft Domain Controller might be a DNS server, might be a mail or web server (shudder!) but that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the name you (or they) choose for the domain.

Just don't get pushed faster than you want to go. If you don't understand what they are trying to sell you, hire someone else to intercede and protect your interests. A Domain Controller can be the right choice, but it ain't necessarily so.

See Samba and PDC's.

This old post explains how to bring a Mac into a Windows 2003 domain.


Got something to add? Send me email.





(OLDER) <- More Stuff -> (NEWER)    (NEWEST)   

Printer Friendly Version

-> -> Do you really need a domain controller?


41 comments



Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic


More Articles by

Find me on Google+

© Anthony Lawrence







Sat Jul 7 01:04:27 2007: 3053   BigDumbDinosaur


Centralized logon also means no logon if that server acts up.

Sounds like a good reason to run Samba. It very seldom "acts up." My office file and print server hasn't acted up in some seven years -- and it isn't running Windows whatever. <Smile>

Resource access permissions can be much more than is needed for a small business, and can be confusing to maintain.

That would be somewhat dependent on the type of business. In an auto repair shop, I agree that such control is probably overkill, although you wouldn't want mechanics peeking into the payroll or general ledger, eh? In a medical clinic or bank, detailed control of access permissions is often required to comply with legal mandates such as HIPAA, with which all health care providers must comply in the USA. As for being confusing, that's more a Windows problem than anything else. At least on the Samba side of things, access control is straightforward and consistent in behavior.

Setting up a PDC does have the advantage of users having roaming profiles, which result in a consistent desktop environment on any machine that is part of the domain. In this respect, Samba is a bit more complex to set up. However, once the roaming profile setup has been debugged it is very trustworthy.

Unfortunately, businesses often get pushed into this model when they buy new software. The people installing the software are often fairly clueless about networking in general but what they do know is that setting up a Domain Controller makes their work easier. Note that's "their" work, not necessarily yours.

Ain't that the truth? I have to deal with these clueless MCSEs on a regular basis and most of them don't know their *redacted* from a hole in the ground when it comes to networking.

My bet is that in five to ten years you'll be moving back to a Unix or Linux based app: unless Microsoft finds some legal shenanigan to kill Linux, I think that's almost inevitable.

At this point in time, I can't see Billy-boy and his lackeys killing Linux. It has become too entrenched in the computing world and even Microsoft can't marshal the resources that would be required to mount a successful battle to stop Linux. Linux achieved critical mass several years ago and is now like a freight train headed downhill with no brakes. Killing Linux would be like trying to stop citizens from speeding on the interstate: too many speeders and not enough cops.

For example, a lot of small businesses have XP Home computers. Microsoft doesn't like those to join a Domain.

XP home is way too lame to be used in a business setting. Why bother?

Just don't get pushed faster than you want to go. If you don't understand what they are trying to sell you, hire someone else to intercede and protect your interests.

True of almost anything to do with computers. They aren't like toasters!



Fri Jul 13 03:42:17 2007: 3056   drag


I don't realy think you can setup Windows workgroup anymore without setting up a domain.

I think I remember hearing the Samba developers talking about a bug with authentication were Windows 2003 and XP could not share files or whatnot without a domain controller. They accidently recreated it when they added compatability code for windows-based handheld devices.

I think that it's not going to be long before you won't be able to even administrate windows machines without a domain controller.



Fri Jun 5 03:57:46 2009: 6442   anonymous

gravatar
worst blog ever written.
if unix/linux/mac was so great, why does it not live on 90%+ of the worlds computers....
free means free. you certainly get what pay for in the OS business.






Fri Jun 5 17:16:06 2009: 6448   TonyLawrence

gravatar
Worst? Ever?

if unix/linux/mac was so great, why does it not live on 90%+ of the worlds computers....

Let me ask you something: why are most people's supermarket shopping carts piled high with soft drinks?

The answer is the same as for your question. As soon as you figure that out, you'll understand why most people use Windows.



Sat Jun 6 11:20:57 2009: 6449   TonyLawrence

gravatar
I guess I'll have to answer that for you.

Although the evidence that Coke, Pepsi, and their ilk are unhealthy is strong, the effects of drinking these aren't blatantly obvious. Moreover, more healthy alternatives are usually more expensive and are less conveniently packaged.

Coke and Pepsi are extensively advertised as general purpose drinks. Drinks like orange juice are seen as specialty items - orange juice is for breakfast only in most people's minds.

Most of your neighbors drink Pepsi or Coke. Supermarket aisles display yards and yards of these products and restaurants always have them available. Fast food restaurants often bundle these with other products to make it easy to place and order - "I'll have a number 6".

Do I really need to draw the parallels to Microsoft Windows?






Sat Jun 6 16:56:14 2009: 6450   anonymous

gravatar
This sums up Microsoft's game:
(link)

Also shows why successful from cheating.



Tue Oct 27 12:40:44 2009: 7353   staffsguy50

gravatar
Wow, that is probably the most important piece of information I have every read in my life! I know Microsoft where bullish and aggressive from their attitude towards PC dealers who wanted to sell Linux based system in the UK. I for one have weighed up the cost benefits alone between setting up an office with 20 desktops, a domain controller, mail server between windows and linux and paying for server version of linux, once you get away from branding issues and start using free alternatives such as Firefox and The Gimp, and Open Office the argument for Micorsoft is very weak to say the least. What we need are for Universities and Schools to start adopting alternatives to MS technology and teaching people that is it NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a one horse race! See I didn't slag them M$ once!



Wed Jan 13 05:02:41 2010: 7902   henrylow

gravatar


. Small Business owners are largely forgotten. Thats why I only focus on them. I have experience several members of my family file bankruptcy due to small business failures. I also I suffered through 2 destroyed businesses due to failure however, in my failings I have learned some of the secrets to success. (Who can say they know it all?)
What I like about small business owners is that they are not afraid to take huge risks and lay it all on the line. But, I agree they do need a lot of help with their marketing. I think having them go the social media and email route is not only the least expensive but its also the most effective. Thanks for the stats!






Thu Feb 18 14:42:37 2010: 8098   FS

gravatar


I have used both Microsoft and Linux for the past couple years now. My biggest complaint about Linux is the software built on top of the kernel! Don't get me wrong, Linux as an OS is a damn solid machine! KDE and Gnome Desktop and the rest are not at the same level of dependability as the Linux kernel. There is no comparison here, KDE and Gnome will crash and dump errors to terminal and Windows XP does not. Konquerer and even Firefox will often crash on Linux, rarely have I seen it crash on XP/Vista/7. There is also no comparison between Microsoft Office and Open Office, Microsoft Office is a much better, polished product.

What the open source community does not seem to understand is that people (general users, not techs) don't want to spend three weeks configuring, debugging and vi editing their machines! They want something that is consistent between releases, service packs and such. There is as much in-fighting in the open source community as anywhere else. What might be in /etc/rc.d/example might be in /etc/example/example2 in another distro. Little concern for uniform standards between releases and distros.

If the open source community could quit their squabbles, they would attract more users, more corporations would take them seriously and in turn write more drivers and in turn attract even more users. More developers would be attracted. Linux could take Microsoft, if it really wants to but it has to sort things out first!



Thu Apr 8 17:47:12 2010: 8383   Sledge

gravatar


I am wondering if Mac mini running Snow Leopard server might be the right solution for a customer that potentially could use a domain controller and the *features* of a Small Business Server. It seems to offer some of the benefits of centralization without complicating the environment to the point of disruption.
Have you ever deployed Mac OS X server for a customer that did need a domain controller?



Thu Apr 8 17:55:58 2010: 8384   TonyLawrence

gravatar


I have not, but yes, that's not a bad idea.



Mon Jul 19 13:32:33 2010: 8830   Jack

gravatar


So, I'm thinking about setting up a domain on my home network and happened upon your blog.

You Linux/Unix guys are so funny.

I loved the "soda" analogy.
What you're basically inferring is that MS is on 95% of the world's computers because we're all idiots and don't know any better? You may have another brand of "drink", but let's face it... it tastes like crap and if you get sick from it, your screwed. There's not a doctor within miles of your house who can prescribe a "cure". And good luck figuring out what do to on your own!

I had a Unix server, in my company for 7+ years and it never crashed, true. But, that's also because it never did anything. We set the box up and never touched it. I'm no idiot when it comes to computers/OSs/networking and I *wouldn't* touch the thing. IF we needed to do anything, we had to fork over thousands to our "guy" who would talk us thru what needed to be done or fly him out from TN.

Unix/Linux is NOT user friendly. Maybe if you've got the time to learn all the ends and outs, but it's a totally different nomenclature. Inferring that you can just "switch" to Linux from MS is an absolute falsehood. I know, I've tried Linux over the years and I just can't do it. There's nothing "user friendly" about it.

There's NO software, either. You're best bet is if you've happened to purchase a program which can be run under an "emulation" of some kind. Compare MS Office to Open Office. There's no comparison folks. But, it's not just the "office" products... run your favorite MMO game on Linux. Heck, just change out a DVD burner or a NIC on your box with Linux. You got a day to invest?
Try downloading an update from your bank in a product that runs on Linux... How's that work?

I think it's the arrogance of the Linux folks that turns off the rest of us... It's like a "parent-child" relationship. You guys know what's "better" for the rest of us and it's a "look down" to even discuss MS.

Your "blog" was about setting up a DC and yet really all it is a hatchet job on MS and IT guys.

I'm no fan of MS. But you won't find hundreds of sites, knocking Linux and extolling XP.



Mon Jul 19 15:32:53 2010: 8831   TonyLawrence

gravatar


No.

Some of the comments may have disparaged Windows. but the post was about unqualified Windows consultants.

As for the rest of your blather, go ahead: keep drinking the junk. We don't really care.



Fri Jul 23 12:41:11 2010: 8850   Bill

gravatar


Jack claims that Linux isn't user friendly . . . I bet my five year old who uses Linux would disagree.



Thu Aug 12 01:25:39 2010: 8889   Zachary

gravatar


Exchange is actually a pretty amazing product. I prefer google apps personally, but for companies uncomfortable with hosting their data in the cloud, it's really quite a good application. Great calendaring, email, and data-sharing features.



Thu Aug 12 01:33:40 2010: 8890   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Exchange is complex and fragile. I sell Kerio

(link)



Fri Aug 13 14:32:25 2010: 8895   BigDumbDinosaur

gravatar


Exchange is actually a pretty amazing product. I prefer google apps personally, but for companies uncomfortable with hosting their data in the cloud, it's really quite a good application. Great calendaring, email, and data-sharing features.

As Tony alluded, Exchange is a glass house in a neighborhood where stones are constantly flying. Also, the homogeneous nature of the Exchange/Outlook model creates an ideal medium for viruses, etc., to thrive. If a company wants to host their own E-mail, Sendmail or Postfix running on Linux is much more reliable. Or, the Kerio product, which is very stable, can be used. Exchange is an overblown piece of trash by comparison.

As for "hosting their data in the cloud," any company that does that is foolish, in my opinion. What do you do when your "cloud" suddenly dissipates due to an Internet outage not under your control? This is like using VoIP in a business: too many points of failure to be trustworthy.



Fri Aug 13 14:54:36 2010: 8896   Zachary

gravatar


" Exchange is a glass house in a neighborhood where stones are constantly flying. "
All I see there is some non-technical FUD.

Also, the homogeneous nature of the Exchange/Outlook model creates an ideal medium for viruses, etc., to thrive"
Some merit to this claim, but what you're saying will be true of any mail server or client that becomes very popular. Additionally, any competent Exchange admin will be running something like Symantec Mail Security on the server side, and ESET or Symantec Endpoint on the client side. These solutions are HIGHLY effective at preventing what you describe.

" If a company wants to host their own E-mail, Sendmail or Postfix running on Linux is much more reliable. Or, the Kerio product, which is very stable, can be used. Exchange is an overblown piece of trash by comparison."
Says you. We have exchange installs that have been running for 10 years with no major issues. All it requires is administering them properly. Additionally, sendmail and postfix don't provide the type of (shared) calendaring, contacts, tasks, etc, that Exchange provides, which have now become essential to many businesses. Additionally, they do not provide ActiveSync-style functionality. At best, they provide push email via IMAP IDLE. However, a small company with just a few users should certainly consider alternatives to exchange. Simply asserting that exchange is an "overblown piece of trash" is absurd. Enormous corporations run on top of exchange, and do so quite effectively.

Regarding the VoIP and Cloud hosting comments . . . I'm not going to even bother dealing with those. I don't even know of a single client we have that *doesn't* have VOiP. We don't however, do cloud hosting, for (perceived) security reasons. I wouldn't recommend hosted exchange personally, but I know several companies that do Google Apps with an SLA, and they've had nothing but great things to say about it.










Fri Aug 13 15:03:21 2010: 8897   TonyLawrence

gravatar


You are misinformed about the ability of Exchange alternatives to do things like Active Sync. Moreover, Exchange and Outlook do have serious structural issues.

You are just a Microsoft person who knows nothing else. Your opinion has no value here.







Fri Aug 13 15:05:12 2010: 8898   anonymous

gravatar


Actually, I was as Solaris/Linux admin for years. Way to talk down to people instead of having an actual conversation.

We still use Linux for some things, and we use MS/Windows for others. Different products have their places.



Fri Aug 13 15:10:09 2010: 8899   TonyLawrence

gravatar


I talk down to you because you demonstrate ignorance. It is as simple as that.



Fri Aug 13 15:10:33 2010: 8900   Zachary

gravatar


I could also say something like "You are just a Linux person who knows nothing else. Your opinion has no value to me".

But that's not relevant to the conversation. What' relevant are the ACTUAL merits of Linux/Unix/Microsoft Products. Why don't we discuss those, instead of insulting each other.



Fri Aug 13 15:15:58 2010: 8901   TonyLawrence

gravatar


No, you can't say that, because I did Microsoft Certs as well, with Exchange as an elective. I am NOT a one trick pony and have worked on more disparate mail servers than you probably have ever heard of.

Give it up. Your opinion has no value here.



Tue Aug 17 18:53:50 2010: 8906   BigDumDinosaur

gravatar


"Exchange is a glass house in a neighborhood where stones are constantly flying."

All I see there is some non-technical FUD.


FUD? <Grin> FUD is Microsoft's middle name. As for Exchange, it is built on Windows and that automatically makes it fragile. The Windows model is full of security issues, relies on a poorly-documented networking protocol (SMB) and has been repeatedly shown to be easily broken by trivial problems. I won't even get started on being locked into a package sold by a convicted monopolist who has yet to develop anything original. Oh, okay. I'll admit that the MS Office Paperclip was original.

"Also, the homogeneous nature of the Exchange/Outlook model creates an ideal medium for viruses, etc., to thrive"

Some merit to this claim, but what you're saying will be true of any mail server or client that becomes very popular.


BS! Sendmail or Postfix on Linux are very popular and have demonstrated remarkable resistance to malware of any kind. Any client will work with this arrangement (including Outlook for the clueless), without fear of a virus taking over and trashing the system. I've run UNIX and Linux-based mail servers for some 15 years and have never had any problem whatsoever. My few clients who have run Exchange and Outlook in the past were forever tinkering with that mess trying to keep it from doing something stupid.

Additionally, any competent Exchange admin will be running something like Symantec Mail Security on the server side, and ESET or Symantec Endpoint on the client side. These solutions are HIGHLY effective at preventing what you describe.

I see. Microsoft sells a defective product, so the "competent Exchange admin" (is there such a thing?) has to purchase third party software to compensate for the defects in Exchange and Outlook. Sure makes a lot of business sense to me. Spend a lot of money for inferior mail server software and an equally inferior client, and then spend more money to make up for the inferior software, which, incidentally, costs a lot of money (Sendmail or Postfix cost nothing, as does Linux if you forgo third party support -- any competent Linux admin won't need it). If I were to suggest such an arrangement to most of my clients who run their businesses on UNIX and Linux servers they'd probably politely suggest I get help -- the psychiatric kind.

" If a company wants to host their own E-mail, Sendmail or Postfix running on Linux is much more reliable. Or, the Kerio product, which is very stable, can be used. Exchange is an overblown piece of trash by comparison."

Says you. We have exchange installs that have been running for 10 years with no major issues. All it requires is administering them properly.


Yeah, where administration means installing the patch
de jour to fix yet another security issue that somehow snuck past the Symantec Mail Security on the server side, and ESET or Symantec Endpoint on the client side.

Additionally, sendmail and postfix don't provide the type of (shared) calendaring, contacts, tasks, etc, that Exchange provides, which have now become essential to many businesses.

You make me laugh with your ignorance. How does transporting mail suddenly turn into managing calendars, contacts and tasks? How about if the
MAIL server does one job very well, that of transporting mail, and other software handle a calendar (if wanted), maintain a contact database (if wanted) and tell you when to perform a task (if wanted)? How typical of Microsoft to turn a basic Internet service (SMTP) into a bunch of unrelated drivel. Essential? Only if one thinks it's essential.

Additionally, they do not provide ActiveSync-style functionality.

Oh yes, a verrrryyyy important "feature," one that can also "ActiveSync" viruses so as to make sure all clients are equally infected.

However, a small company with just a few users should certainly consider alternatives to exchange.

All companies should consider anything but Exchange, the world's most overpriced, complicated and insecure mail server that also includes semi-useless features such as calendaring/contact database (built on Access, another fine piece of MS software "engineering")/task management/etc. With one exception, none of my many business clients would get within 10 feet of anything as virus-prone and rickety as Exchange. Also, all of them (except the Exchange user) run Thunderbird or Seamonkey for mail access, and don't worry about a virus showing up because of something like ActiveSync. If they need a calendar service, task management (only a complete schlub would have to have a computer tell them when to do something) or contact management, it can be readily added, using Open Source Software that wasn't designed by a greedy monopolist who doesn't understand security.

Simply asserting that exchange is an "overblown piece of trash" is absurd. Enormous corporations run on top of exchange, and do so quite effectively. Right, as their sysadmins run around installing the latest versions of Symantec Mail Security on the server side, and ESET or Symantec Endpoint on the client side.

Regarding the VoIP and Cloud hosting comments . . . I'm not going to even bother dealing with those. I don't even know of a single client we have that *doesn't* have VOiP.

I have two clients who use VoIP and both tend to get annoyed with the drop-outs and outright service failures that are characteristic of anything routed through the Internet. The smart clients stick to POTS, which in the USA and Canada is exceptionally reliable. If your phones aren't working due to a VoIP failure your customers can't reach you to order products and services, but they will be able to call your competitor whose phone service is via POTS and stays alive under almost all conditions, even local power failure.



Tue Nov 16 23:52:46 2010: 9117   AKeith

gravatar


I'm only breaking into the IT scene and have less experience than anyone here but on the topic of going with something like Kerio vs. Exchange would be in the support. I had not heard of Kerio until now but that doesn't mean its not a good product. I'm not arguing that point. What I'm trying to say is that you're likely paying a premium on Exchange because of the money that they've thrown into R&D for it as well as the fact that it is so widely used internationally.

I could be completely wrong and Kerio has a wider domination than I am giving credit but up until now I hadn't even heard of Kerio.

I came here to read about domain controllers (like others, i'm sure) but the article didn't really expand much. That's OK as it's not a very long article and at this point its about three years old. Could things have changed or do you still hold the same sentiments about both DCs and Exchange? I don't have a bias towards one system or another mainly because I'm barely getting my start in the IT industry. A lot of the bickering going on seems really childish and to be honest, it's not constructive at all.

Is Kerio something I could suggest to small businesses? I have a few clients (creative professionals/architecture firms, etc) that run small operations with something like 6-8 employees. Sometimes they don't even need a central mail client but they're looking for options that sound like they would be suited to an application like Exchange.

One last thing and really, I'm not trying to favor any one OS over another but why is it that Windows (as opposed to Linux) dominates the market in most, if not all business aspects? Windows Server, Exchange, etc etc. Again, I'm not playing favorites here but that's just how I've seen it throughout organizations (and schools I've attended) that I have worked for. Why isn't Linux taking the market share by storm? Time and time I read how Windows is such a fragile and virus-ridden operating system which is so poorly built but hear little in the way of Linux capitalizing on that fact. It's an honest question really and I'd love to hear an honest answer.

As I've said before I'm barely making my way into the IT world and I know I've got quite a bit to learn and quite a bit of catching up to do (I'm 24). But some of the questions I've asked would greatly help me to make more informed decisions or to better the current position I'm in. I work for a medium-sized business specializing in Auto loans and we're moving to a new location. In the process, we're going to be implementing a sub-domain. Our servers are hosted remotely and so that presents a whole slew of problems. I mainly came here to see if we really needed to move to that architecture but the comments got me thinking and here I am off on a tirade. The comments I've read thus far have been insightful and informative. I really just want to learn as much as possible so as to have an informed opinion on topics that may arise in the future.

Thanks for reading this long drawn out post!



Wed Nov 17 00:41:25 2010: 9118   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Why don't you give me a call tomorrow? 774-213-1199 East Coast, 9-5







Wed Nov 17 15:53:37 2010: 9119   BigDumbDinosaur

gravatar


Is Kerio something I could suggest to small businesses?

Without hesitation.

As for the Linux vs. Windows argument, that is rooted in the 1990s when well-meaning but ill-informed bosses started using Windows NT4 to run servers because it appeared to be less expensive than Novell Netware and UNIX (Linux, while around at that time, was not really ready for prime-time, which has since been splendidly handled). Inertia and ignorance, coupled with laziness, caused Windows to predominate.

It's funny, but in some 25 years of working as an independent computer jock, I have never set up a Windows server, although I have had the dubious pleasure of working on several. I'll take Linux and Samba any time.



Wed Nov 17 16:28:35 2010: 9120   TonyLawrence

gravatar


For Linux server market share, you really should read
(link)
(link)
and
(link)



Thu Nov 18 22:02:44 2010: 9122   AKeith

gravatar


Hey Tony, BigDumbDinosaur,

Thanks for the responses and thanks for the offer to give you a call (if that was in fact an invitation for me to call you!). We're running in a 100% Microsoft environment as far as I can tell and to be honest, I don't know how easy it would be for me to convince the upper management of a Linux environment. I'd love to present cost benefits and how we can save more money in these areas. There are so many questions that I have but I'm sure it's just a matter of reading more. Those sites and the insight they provide are pretty staggering.

Here's another question, though it probably has an obvious answer: If we're using Kerio, is there a Kerio client or could we still use Microsoft Outlook? There's no way I'd be able to get this company to switch over completely to a Linux environment as I think there are just some applications that require Windows. However, if I can make some compelling or sound arguments for possibly migrating some things into the Linux environment, I would love to learn. I don't know what the cost is right now but we have servers being hosted on opposite ends of the US.

I definitely need to learn a lot more about Linux and how I can support an enterprise / medium-sized business.



Fri Nov 19 03:13:16 2010: 9123   TonyLawrence

gravatar


Kerio can work however you want - it can look like an Exchange server to Outlook or do IMAP, POP, Webmail, Smartphones, Blackberries - whatever you need, mix and match.

You should call me: 774 213 1199



Sat Nov 20 14:25:35 2010: 9126   kot0ko

gravatar


Hi ~! can you help me please? I have project about domain controller and a Network so I want to ask ? When would we use the model without domain controlle and when would we use the model with domain controller? Why? Explain
can you help me ^_^



Sat Feb 5 15:17:15 2011: 9279   Bitvilag

gravatar


I enjoyed reading your article. I personally cannot understand how poeple can love Microsoft so much. I myself hate the whole corrupted system. All they want is money and of course the data they get from your pc without u knowing it.

In my opinion linux is way better to use and handle thank microsoft however its true. It has its limitations. You cannot use linux alone and be satisfied for the very reasons mentioned above/under however if you think about it linux is constructed to serve the users the best way and they didnt think having some fancy output would be the most important of an OS on the other hand MIcrosoft is trying to focus on things that regula users can see such as the look of it.

Regular user buys os and installs it. OHHH WOW its so beautiful...and that enough for saying this os is awsome. Well after this how could you not say the majority of users are dumm?

I have to use both but I think using both is ideal way of living. Having a linux server and linux client while also having a windows client plus if your pocket money is big enough then a Mac. This is the idea setup for a home network. As for small business I am would definitely use a linux headless server maybe an Ubuntu which I think is the easiest to configure and windows clients lined up. The reason we need windows (and now read carefully) is not because we love windows so much. NOPE. Its because we cannot use anything else. And why is that? Because windows have been on the market for years and years so a huge number programs are only available on windows. and because many people are using windows and using windows products and sending stuff in windows file formats you just cant move on completely to linux. Whats the solution? Easy.

There should be a say set and Everyone in the world delete their windows and install linux. LOL ...Now that would be a day that lot of would not forget:)



Sun Nov 27 08:08:43 2011: 10254   Chris

gravatar


I am not sure how to start here. It seems to me that this speech is going nowhere. Who exactly is the audience of these blog? Speaking badly about Microsoft to people that have to hire consultants because they have no idea what a computer is sounds pointless (you will only confuse them more). Besides, most people in the MS model work there because it has the larger share of the market and not because of some hippie ideal. Also, it seem to me that the blogger is missing some important business key points, such as the fact that IT is better served by creating an easy to manage environment with pieces that are fast and easy to replace (human and non-human alike), because generally companies that hire consultants are not in the IT business and decision makers are mainly concerned about fast responses and easy to swap resources.
If you wanted to convince me you would have to analyze what I see:
MS:
Far from perfect but with a very large pool of relatively cheap resources and 3rd party IT companies that can take over. Almost no fragmentation.
LINUX:
Maybe better (I am not so sure about that) but requires more expensive technicians that are not so easily replaceable. In my experience people in this area of the market tend to feel even more like gods that their MS counterparts and tend to customize more, which makes them more expensive to replace. Highly fragmented.
POINT: I see it as more likely that MS will fail more often than a LINUX env't but it will be easier and cheaper to resolve and in the case of a real critical emergency (where my IT director dies in the middle of a breakdown) it is also more likely that I will find a replacement in a MS env't.
POINT2: logon is not the only task of a MS domain architecture, there is also security which is made very easy with this kind of granular management. TRUE: as stated by the blogger; For very small companies this may not matter but they would have to be so small that they don't have the money to buy Windows Pro and in that case they will (most likely) not have money to pay a consultant.






Sun Nov 27 13:00:23 2011: 10256   TonyLawrence

gravatar


So you didn't understand the article..

Shrug. Have a nice day.



Wed Jun 6 03:42:38 2012: 11063   Tommy

gravatar


I felt there was a strong "bias" towards Linux and a lot of "negativity" towards Microsoft which is not appropriate in my opinion. Centralized logon is key if you employ more than 3-4 staff members, you need network security, user management etc. which AD does a great job of. I do not think that the World will tend to be a Linux or Windows, they both have a place and exclusive markets for themselves.



Wed Jun 6 09:50:34 2012: 11066   TonyLawrence

gravatar


No, but we do have a strong bias against stupidity.



Sat Feb 9 18:31:13 2013: 11875   Matt

gravatar


I have no complaints for either Linux or Microsoft.

In our small business setting, we are using a simple Linux file server, running Samba 3.6, with six users and authentication.

Our four desktop machines run Windows XP (some Home, some Pro). We require Windows for our day-to-day software (namely Adobe CS 5.5) and a variety of print drivers. Everything interconnects. The Windows machine that faces the public only has access to the files we want it to. So, no worries.

Both platforms work as advertised. No complaints. Even in early 2013!

If we wanted a desktop option for Linux (which we have no need for, as all the software has already been ported for Windows), the Ubuntu distribution is reliable and consistent enough for us.



Sat Feb 9 18:34:48 2013: 11876   Matt

gravatar


Well, actually, Unix/Linux/Mac is on 90% (or there abouts) of the computers out there. They're just not desktop computers. The majority of cell phones (Android and iPhone), pads, and servers are Unix/Linux/Mac based.

------------------------
Kerio Samepage


Have you tried Searching this site?

Unix/Linux/Mac OS X support by phone, email or on-site: Support Rates

This is a Unix/Linux resource website. It contains technical articles about Unix, Linux and general computing related subjects, opinion, news, help files, how-to's, tutorials and more.

Contact us





Simplicity is a great virtue but it requires hard work to achieve it and education to appreciate it. And to make matters worse: complexity sells better. ((Edsger W. Dijkstra)

Perl: The only language that looks the same before and after RSA encryption. (Keith Bostic)








This post tagged: